News:

Good day, denizens of OC.net! Per our tradition, the forum will shut down for Clean Monday, beginning around 9pm Sunday evening (2/18) and ending around 9pm Monday evening (2/19). In the spirit of the coming Forgiveness Sunday, I ask you to forgive me for the sins I have committed against you. At the end of Great and Holy Week, the Forum will also shut down for Holy Friday and Holy Saturday (times TBA).

What is the role of the Church as moral teacher, and what is theobligation on the part of the faithful (including the pope, bishops,theologians, and ordinary laypeople) to choose in accordance with themoral norms proposed by the Church's teaching authority? Can dissentfrom such teaching be legitimate? To answer these questions it will beuseful to consider

1. teaching authority in the Church; 2. the ways in which this authority is exercised; 3. whether specific moral norms have been taught infallibly by theChurch's teaching authority; 4. the kind of response due to moral teachings that have not beenproposed infallibly; 5. the question of dissent.

The rest of the article can be read by following the link provided above. Posting of article pared down to introductory abstract to make post compliant with forum policy on how to post articles from other sites.

What is the role of the Church as moral teacher, and what is theobligation on the part of the faithful (including the pope, bishops,theologians, and ordinary laypeople) to choose in accordance with themoral norms proposed by the Church's teaching authority? Can dissentfrom such teaching be legitimate? To answer these questions it will beuseful to consider

1. teaching authority in the Church; 2. the ways in which this authority is exercised; 3. whether specific moral norms have been taught infallibly by theChurch's teaching authority; 4. the kind of response due to moral teachings that have not beenproposed infallibly; 5. the question of dissent.

6. how this authority specifies what is infallible, and what specifically are those norms.

As scholars such as the late great Dominican theologian, Yves CardinalCongar, have noted, the term magisterium has such a long history andduring the Middle Ages it referred to the teaching authority proper totheologians, i.e., those who by study and diligence have achieved someunderstanding of the truths of the faith and their relationship totruths that can be known without the light of faith. [1]

this is a problem, as there is the assertion of a "magisterium of theologians," against which those who deny it hold that in the hierarchy of theological certitude that they are not even ordinary magisterium, the degree of certitude is fallible, and they have no assent required. It that is true, then that applies to the long history refered to here when "magisterium" meant the theologians' teaching authority, and not, as now, the theologians are defined as opposed (meaning not part of) the "magisterium."Donum Veritatis" Instruction on the ecclesial vocation of theologianhttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

one given it by theChurch herself in her understanding of herself as the pillar andground of truth (see Tim 3:15) against which the gates of hell cannotprevail (Mt 16:18; Gal 1:, and as the community to which Christhimself has entrusted his saving word and work. According to her ownunderstanding of the term, the Church teaches that the magisterium isthe authority to teach, in the name of Christ, the truths of Christianfaith and life (morals) and all that is necessary and/or useful forthe proclamation and defense of these truths (see Dei verbum, . Thisteaching authority is vested in the college of bishops under theheadship of the chief bishop, the Roman Pontiff, the "concrete centerof unity and head of the whole episcopate," [2] the successor of theApostle Peter (see Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium, 22; VaticanCouncil I, DS 3065-3074).

ah, but then that college of bishops includes a number of "dissidents." It doesn't seem that your article recognizes that. And then, "the Roman Pontiff" can overrule any and all of the "college of bishops," which vests that magisterium in him, which raises the question of how the College of Cardinals vest in the chief bishop a "munus" they don't have.

This magisterium, moreover, demands assent to its teachings by thefaithful in virtue of the divine authority vested in it and not simplyin virtue of the contents of the message it teaches (Vatican CouncilI, DS 3020). It has authority in teaching all the faithful in keepingwith the inner constitution of the Church itself (Lumen gentium,23-24). Its teaching, moreover, is an exercise of its pastoral office,its munus (a term much richer in connotation than our English"office," connoting a privileged honor and mission [3]), to care forthe "souls" of all the faithful, i.e., to safeguard the divine lifewithin them.

I cannot reply better than the Eastern Patriarchs did:

Quote

For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way.

At times the magisterium proposes matters of faith and moralsinfallibly, i.e., with the assurance that what is proposed isabsolutely irreformable and a matter to be held definitively by thefaithful. At other times the magisterium proposes matters of faith andmorals authoritatively and as true, but not in such wise that thematter proposed is to be held definitively and absolutely. But stillthe matter proposed is to be held by the faithful and to be held astrue. Note that the proper way to speak of teachings proposed in thisway is to say that they are authoritatively taught; it is not properto say that they are fallibly taught.

distinction without a difference as long as you can't/won't tell what is "infallibly" taught.

The magisterium can propose matters infallibly in two different ways.First, a matter of faith or morals can be solemnly defined by anecumenical council or by the Roman Pontiff when, "as the supremeshepherd and teacher of all the faithful, he . . . proclaims by adefinitive act some doctrine of faith or morals" (Vatican I, DS 3074).

a useless term of art as long as "definitive act" is left indefinitely defined.

In acentrally important passage of that document the Council Fathersdeclared:

Although the bishops individually do not enjoy the prerogative ofinfallibility, they nevertheless proclaim the teaching of Christinfallibly, even when they are dispersed throughout the world,provided that they remain in communion with each other and with thesuccessor of Peter and that in authoritatively teaching on a matter offaith and morals they agree in one judgment as that to be helddefinitively (25).

again, ingoring those "dissident" bishops. The majority report on Humanae Vitae being a good example, followed up by the Winnipeg Statement. And the Vatican's bishops do not remain in communion with each other: the Vatican places value only on their communion with it.

This teaching of Vatican II on the infallible character ofauthoritative magisterial teaching in the day-to-day or ordinaryexercise of its authority was by no means a novel teaching of VaticanII. It had been set forth in the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici (c. 1323,#2), a canon repeated as canon 74, #2 in the new Codex Iuris Canonicipromulgated in 1983, and drawn almost word for word from Vatican I'ssolemn teaching on the same matter (cf. DS 3011). Canon 749, #2 in thenew Codex reads as follows: "The College of Bishops also possessesinfallibility in its teaching . . . when the Bishops, dispersedthroughout the world but maintaining the bond of union amongthemselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the sameRoman Pontiff authentically (or authoritatively) teach matters offaith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching isdefinitively to be held."

When the bishops teachon matters of faith and morals in their capacity as bishops, they"speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept theirteaching and adhere to it with a religious assent (obsequiumreligiosum) of soul.

like those bishops of the Winnipeg Statement, and the HV Majority Report?

This religious submission of will and mind mustbe shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of theRoman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, itmust be shown in such a way that his supreme teaching authority isacknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerelyadhered to, according to his manifest mind and will" (Lumen gentium,25). The meaning of this obsequium religiosum will be examined in moredetail below, under #4.

how about according to his unmanifest mind and will, i.e. his usual modus operandi?

3. Are some specific moral norms infallibly proposed by the magisterium?

Every Catholic theologian acknowledges that certain very general moralnorms are infallibly proposed (e.g., one ought to love God and one'sneighbor). But today a key claim made by a good number of Catholictheologians is that no specific moral norms have been infalliblytaught; indeed, they claim that such specific moral norms (e.g., oneought never to commit adultery; one ought never intentionally to killan innocent human being) cannot be taught infallibly.

Some theologians, for example, Charles E. Curran, appeal to the Codeof Canon Law to support their claim. Thus Curran and several of hisassociates appealed in 1969 to paragraph 3 of canon 1323 of the old1917 Code (in fact, they erroneously cited canon 1223, or perhaps thiswas a typographical error), which corresponds to paragraph 3 of canon749 in the new 1983 Code. [4] This paragraph says that "No doctrine isto be understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestlydemonstrated" (emphasis added). But appeal to this paragraph does notsettle the matter. The paragraph to which Curran (and others) appealis explicitly concerned with teachings infallibly defined; it is notconcerned with teachings infallibly proposed by the ordinary,day-to-day exercise of the magisterium.

a moot question, as the canons don't explicitely delineate between the two. And since all the disclaimers about the Pope being infallible in anything and everything he says, unless a teaching falls in that "narrow definition" of infallible that is claimed for Pastor Aeternus, one should assUme that, since to not "manifestly demonstrate" is the modus operandi of the ordinary, day-to-day exercise of the magisterium, that such teaching are not infallible. (note: I didn't say "teach fallibly").

As we shall see, evidence supports the position thatthe core of Catholic moral teaching has been proposed in this way.

These theologians likewise contend that we come to know all specificmoral norms inductively, by reflecting on shared human experiences incompany with others. They then argue that, since "we can never excludethe possibility that future experience, hitherto unimagined, might puta moral problem into a new frame of reference which would call for arevision of a norm that, when formulated, could not have taken suchexperience into account," [5] norms of this kind cannot be universallytrue and hence cannot be fit subject matter of infallible teaching.Here I simply wish to point out that these theologians have notproperly identified the way we come to know specific moral norms. AsSt. Thomas and the Catholic tradition hold, the truth of many specificmoral norms, e.g., the precepts of the Decalogue, can be shown in thelight of the primary principles of natural law. [6]

yes, one of the primary sources of error in the Vatican's thinking. And even here, natural law won't save you, e.g. over usury in agrarian society and interest in capitalist ones.

A final reason advanced by these theologians to support their claimthat specific moral norms are rooted in the "concrete" nature of humanbeings, not in their "transcendental" or "metaphysical" nature, andthat man's "concrete" nature is subject to radical change. Thisposition, rooted in Rahnerian thought, ignores the fact that humannature cannot substantively change if men are to remain men and ifChrist shared Adam's and our human nature. It also ignores the truththat the goods perfective of human persons, the goods to which we areordered by our natural inclinations, the goods at stake in moralchoices, are the same for us as they were for Adam, goods such as lifeitself, living in harmony and fellowship with others, knowledge of thetruth, etc. [7]

recognize that the core ofCatholic moral teaching, as set forth in the precepts of the Decalogueas these precepts have been and are understood within the Churchitself, has been infallibly proposed by the ordinary, day-to-dayexercise of the magisterium by bishops dispersed throughout the worldyet in union with one another and with the Holy Father. For thismagisterium has proposed, as a matter definitively to be held, that itis always gravely immoral intentionally to kill the innocent,

yes, I'm sure the victims of the Inquisition and the children of the Albigensians ("Kill them all, let God sort them out"), not to mention the youngin's that the Crusaders came across were aware of that.

This was theunderstanding of the Church Fathers, of medieval theologians such asThomas Aquinas, etc. It was the firm teaching of the Catechism of theCouncil of Trent, and it was commonly taught by all theologians priorto Vatican II, as attested to in a remarkable text of Karl Rahner inhis book Nature and Grace, published in English in 1963. Although henever formally repudiated what he had said in that book, Rahnersubsequently claimed that the magisterium cannot infallibly teachspecific moral norms insofar as they are concerned with man's concretehuman nature. But, as we have seen, this view cannot be sustained.

What caused Rahner to change his mind, apparently, was Humanae Vitae;for nothing in the text of the documents of Vatican II can be used tosupport this view.

Moreover, and this is very important, Pope John Paul II in EvangeliumVitae explicitly referred to the key passage in Lumen Gentium, 25,identifying the conditions under which the ordinary, day-to-dayexercise of the magisterium can propose truths infallibly. He did soin affirming as solemnly as he could without making an ex cathedrapronouncement the truth of the Church's teaching on a the absolute inviolability of innocent human life from intentionalattack (Evangelium Vitae, 57),b the intrinsically evil character of intentional abortion (Ibid., 62) andc the intrinsically evil character of all forms of euthanasia or mercykilling (Ibid., 65).

if he could (and should) have made an infallible statement ex cathedra, the fact that he avoided it strengthens the argument that it is not infallible: if it were infallible, why avoid treating it as such.

4. The response due moral teachings authoritatively but not infallibly proposed

I have argued that the central core of Catholic moral teaching hasbeen infallibly proposed by the ordinary magisterium. Even if one wereto disagree with this argument (which I believe is sound), one mustacknowledge that the magisterium does teach with a more than merelyhuman authority on moral questions. Moreover, it proposes moral normsnot as legalistic rules but as truths of Christian life. Moralteachings authoritatively but not infallibly proposed as true arebinding upon the consciences of the faithful, including pope, bishops,theologians, and ordinary laypeople.

All the faithful are to givethese teachings a religious submission (obsequium religiosum) of willand mind. Teachings authoritatively proposed are proposed as true, notas opinions or "prudential guidelines."

Still, such teachings are not infallibly proposed; they are notproposed as "definitively to be held." This raises the question of thenature of the "religious submission" of will and mind and the questionof dissent. Precisely what does this entail?

5. The nature of the "obsequium religiosum" and the question of dissent

It is interesting to note that the term "dissent" did not appear intheological literature prior to the end of Vatican Council II. The"approved" manuals to which the three bishops, who wanted Lumengentium 25 to say something about the nature of the obsequiumreligiosum required for teaching authoritatively but not infalliblyproposed, were referred did not speak of legitimate theologicaldissent from such teaching. [8] Rather, they recognized that atheologian (or other well-informed Catholic) might not in consciencebe able to give internal assent to some teachings. They thus spoke of"withholding assent" and raising questions, but this is a far cry from"dissent."

The Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian issued bythe Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has addressed thismatter. It recognized that theologians (and others) might question notonly the form but even the substantive content of some authoritativelyproposed magisterial teachings. It held that it is permissible in suchinstances to withhold assent, to raise questions (and present them tothe magisterium), to discuss the issues with other theologians (and behumble enough to accept criticism of one's own views by them).Theologians (and others) can propose their views as hypotheses to beconsidered and tested by other theologians and ultimately to be judgedby those who have, within the Church, the solemn obligation ofsettling disputes and speaking the mind of Christ.

But it taught one is not giving a true obsequium religiosum if onedissents from magisterial teaching and proposes one's own position asa position that the faithful are at liberty to follow, substituting itfor the teaching of the magisterium.

then the magisterium shold be clear, backing up its claims of clarity.

But this is precisely what hasbeen occurring. Dissent of this kind is not compatible with theobsequium religiosum. In fact, those who dissent in this way reallyusurp the teaching office of bishops and popes. Theologians, insofaras they are theologians, are not pastors in the Church. When theyinstruct the faithful that the teachings of those who are pastors inthe Church (the pope and bishops) are false and that the faithful canput those teachings aside and put in their place their own theologicalopinions, they are harming the Church and arrogantly assuming forthemselves the pastoral role of pope and bishops.

Actually, it seems the Vatican's bishops and popes have appropriated the magisterium which had formed amidst its theologicans.

Dissent, understood in this sense, is thus completely incompatiblewith the obsequium religiosum required for teachings authoritativelybut not infallibly proposed.

This article originally appeared in the May/June 2000 issue of Catholic Dossier.

is that like the Preachers Hymnal for the Choir?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

What is the role of the Church as moral teacher, and what is theobligation on the part of the faithful (including the pope, bishops,theologians, and ordinary laypeople) to choose in accordance with themoral norms proposed by the Church's teaching authority? Can dissentfrom such teaching be legitimate? To answer these questions it will beuseful to consider

1. teaching authority in the Church; 2. the ways in which this authority is exercised; 3. whether specific moral norms have been taught infallibly by theChurch's teaching authority; 4. the kind of response due to moral teachings that have not beenproposed infallibly; 5. the question of dissent.

6. how this authority specifies what is infallible, and what specifically are those norms.

As scholars such as the late great Dominican theologian, Yves CardinalCongar, have noted, the term magisterium has such a long history andduring the Middle Ages it referred to the teaching authority proper totheologians, i.e., those who by study and diligence have achieved someunderstanding of the truths of the faith and their relationship totruths that can be known without the light of faith. [1]

this is a problem, as there is the assertion of a "magisterium of theologians," against which those who deny it hold that in the hierarchy of theological certitude that they are not even ordinary magisterium, the degree of certitude is fallible, and they have no assent required. It that is true, then that applies to the long history refered to here when "magisterium" meant the theologians' teaching authority, and not, as now, the theologians are defined as opposed (meaning not part of) the "magisterium."Donum Veritatis" Instruction on the ecclesial vocation of theologianhttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

one given it by theChurch herself in her understanding of herself as the pillar andground of truth (see Tim 3:15) against which the gates of hell cannotprevail (Mt 16:18; Gal 1:, and as the community to which Christhimself has entrusted his saving word and work. According to her ownunderstanding of the term, the Church teaches that the magisterium isthe authority to teach, in the name of Christ, the truths of Christianfaith and life (morals) and all that is necessary and/or useful forthe proclamation and defense of these truths (see Dei verbum, . Thisteaching authority is vested in the college of bishops under theheadship of the chief bishop, the Roman Pontiff, the "concrete centerof unity and head of the whole episcopate," [2] the successor of theApostle Peter (see Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium, 22; VaticanCouncil I, DS 3065-3074).

ah, but then that college of bishops includes a number of "dissidents." It doesn't seem that your article recognizes that. And then, "the Roman Pontiff" can overrule any and all of the "college of bishops," which vests that magisterium in him, which raises the question of how the College of Cardinals vest in the chief bishop a "munus" they don't have.

This magisterium, moreover, demands assent to its teachings by thefaithful in virtue of the divine authority vested in it and not simplyin virtue of the contents of the message it teaches (Vatican CouncilI, DS 3020). It has authority in teaching all the faithful in keepingwith the inner constitution of the Church itself (Lumen gentium,23-24). Its teaching, moreover, is an exercise of its pastoral office,its munus (a term much richer in connotation than our English"office," connoting a privileged honor and mission [3]), to care forthe "souls" of all the faithful, i.e., to safeguard the divine lifewithin them.

I cannot reply better than the Eastern Patriarchs did:

Quote

For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way.

At times the magisterium proposes matters of faith and moralsinfallibly, i.e., with the assurance that what is proposed isabsolutely irreformable and a matter to be held definitively by thefaithful. At other times the magisterium proposes matters of faith andmorals authoritatively and as true, but not in such wise that thematter proposed is to be held definitively and absolutely. But stillthe matter proposed is to be held by the faithful and to be held astrue. Note that the proper way to speak of teachings proposed in thisway is to say that they are authoritatively taught; it is not properto say that they are fallibly taught.

distinction without a difference as long as you can't/won't tell what is "infallibly" taught.

The magisterium can propose matters infallibly in two different ways.First, a matter of faith or morals can be solemnly defined by anecumenical council or by the Roman Pontiff when, "as the supremeshepherd and teacher of all the faithful, he . . . proclaims by adefinitive act some doctrine of faith or morals" (Vatican I, DS 3074).

a useless term of art as long as "definitive act" is left indefinitely defined.

In acentrally important passage of that document the Council Fathersdeclared:

Although the bishops individually do not enjoy the prerogative ofinfallibility, they nevertheless proclaim the teaching of Christinfallibly, even when they are dispersed throughout the world,provided that they remain in communion with each other and with thesuccessor of Peter and that in authoritatively teaching on a matter offaith and morals they agree in one judgment as that to be helddefinitively (25).

again, ingoring those "dissident" bishops. The majority report on Humanae Vitae being a good example, followed up by the Winnipeg Statement. And the Vatican's bishops do not remain in communion with each other: the Vatican places value only on their communion with it.

This teaching of Vatican II on the infallible character ofauthoritative magisterial teaching in the day-to-day or ordinaryexercise of its authority was by no means a novel teaching of VaticanII. It had been set forth in the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici (c. 1323,#2), a canon repeated as canon 74, #2 in the new Codex Iuris Canonicipromulgated in 1983, and drawn almost word for word from Vatican I'ssolemn teaching on the same matter (cf. DS 3011). Canon 749, #2 in thenew Codex reads as follows: "The College of Bishops also possessesinfallibility in its teaching . . . when the Bishops, dispersedthroughout the world but maintaining the bond of union amongthemselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the sameRoman Pontiff authentically (or authoritatively) teach matters offaith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching isdefinitively to be held."

When the bishops teachon matters of faith and morals in their capacity as bishops, they"speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept theirteaching and adhere to it with a religious assent (obsequiumreligiosum) of soul.

like those bishops of the Winnipeg Statement, and the HV Majority Report?

This religious submission of will and mind mustbe shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of theRoman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, itmust be shown in such a way that his supreme teaching authority isacknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerelyadhered to, according to his manifest mind and will" (Lumen gentium,25). The meaning of this obsequium religiosum will be examined in moredetail below, under #4.

how about according to his unmanifest mind and will, i.e. his usual modus operandi?

3. Are some specific moral norms infallibly proposed by the magisterium?

Every Catholic theologian acknowledges that certain very general moralnorms are infallibly proposed (e.g., one ought to love God and one'sneighbor). But today a key claim made by a good number of Catholictheologians is that no specific moral norms have been infalliblytaught; indeed, they claim that such specific moral norms (e.g., oneought never to commit adultery; one ought never intentionally to killan innocent human being) cannot be taught infallibly.

Some theologians, for example, Charles E. Curran, appeal to the Codeof Canon Law to support their claim. Thus Curran and several of hisassociates appealed in 1969 to paragraph 3 of canon 1323 of the old1917 Code (in fact, they erroneously cited canon 1223, or perhaps thiswas a typographical error), which corresponds to paragraph 3 of canon749 in the new 1983 Code. [4] This paragraph says that "No doctrine isto be understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestlydemonstrated" (emphasis added). But appeal to this paragraph does notsettle the matter. The paragraph to which Curran (and others) appealis explicitly concerned with teachings infallibly defined; it is notconcerned with teachings infallibly proposed by the ordinary,day-to-day exercise of the magisterium.

a moot question, as the canons don't explicitely delineate between the two. And since all the disclaimers about the Pope being infallible in anything and everything he says, unless a teaching falls in that "narrow definition" of infallible that is claimed for Pastor Aeternus, one should assUme that, since to not "manifestly demonstrate" is the modus operandi of the ordinary, day-to-day exercise of the magisterium, that such teaching are not infallible. (note: I didn't say "teach fallibly").

As we shall see, evidence supports the position thatthe core of Catholic moral teaching has been proposed in this way.

These theologians likewise contend that we come to know all specificmoral norms inductively, by reflecting on shared human experiences incompany with others. They then argue that, since "we can never excludethe possibility that future experience, hitherto unimagined, might puta moral problem into a new frame of reference which would call for arevision of a norm that, when formulated, could not have taken suchexperience into account," [5] norms of this kind cannot be universallytrue and hence cannot be fit subject matter of infallible teaching.Here I simply wish to point out that these theologians have notproperly identified the way we come to know specific moral norms. AsSt. Thomas and the Catholic tradition hold, the truth of many specificmoral norms, e.g., the precepts of the Decalogue, can be shown in thelight of the primary principles of natural law. [6]

yes, one of the primary sources of error in the Vatican's thinking. And even here, natural law won't save you, e.g. over usury in agrarian society and interest in capitalist ones.

A final reason advanced by these theologians to support their claimthat specific moral norms are rooted in the "concrete" nature of humanbeings, not in their "transcendental" or "metaphysical" nature, andthat man's "concrete" nature is subject to radical change. Thisposition, rooted in Rahnerian thought, ignores the fact that humannature cannot substantively change if men are to remain men and ifChrist shared Adam's and our human nature. It also ignores the truththat the goods perfective of human persons, the goods to which we areordered by our natural inclinations, the goods at stake in moralchoices, are the same for us as they were for Adam, goods such as lifeitself, living in harmony and fellowship with others, knowledge of thetruth, etc. [7]

recognize that the core ofCatholic moral teaching, as set forth in the precepts of the Decalogueas these precepts have been and are understood within the Churchitself, has been infallibly proposed by the ordinary, day-to-dayexercise of the magisterium by bishops dispersed throughout the worldyet in union with one another and with the Holy Father. For thismagisterium has proposed, as a matter definitively to be held, that itis always gravely immoral intentionally to kill the innocent,

yes, I'm sure the victims of the Inquisition and the children of the Albigensians ("Kill them all, let God sort them out"), not to mention the youngin's that the Crusaders came across were aware of that.

This was theunderstanding of the Church Fathers, of medieval theologians such asThomas Aquinas, etc. It was the firm teaching of the Catechism of theCouncil of Trent, and it was commonly taught by all theologians priorto Vatican II, as attested to in a remarkable text of Karl Rahner inhis book Nature and Grace, published in English in 1963. Although henever formally repudiated what he had said in that book, Rahnersubsequently claimed that the magisterium cannot infallibly teachspecific moral norms insofar as they are concerned with man's concretehuman nature. But, as we have seen, this view cannot be sustained.

What caused Rahner to change his mind, apparently, was Humanae Vitae;for nothing in the text of the documents of Vatican II can be used tosupport this view.

Moreover, and this is very important, Pope John Paul II in EvangeliumVitae explicitly referred to the key passage in Lumen Gentium, 25,identifying the conditions under which the ordinary, day-to-dayexercise of the magisterium can propose truths infallibly. He did soin affirming as solemnly as he could without making an ex cathedrapronouncement the truth of the Church's teaching on a the absolute inviolability of innocent human life from intentionalattack (Evangelium Vitae, 57),b the intrinsically evil character of intentional abortion (Ibid., 62) andc the intrinsically evil character of all forms of euthanasia or mercykilling (Ibid., 65).

if he could (and should) have made an infallible statement ex cathedra, the fact that he avoided it strengthens the argument that it is not infallible: if it were infallible, why avoid treating it as such.

4. The response due moral teachings authoritatively but not infallibly proposed

I have argued that the central core of Catholic moral teaching hasbeen infallibly proposed by the ordinary magisterium. Even if one wereto disagree with this argument (which I believe is sound), one mustacknowledge that the magisterium does teach with a more than merelyhuman authority on moral questions. Moreover, it proposes moral normsnot as legalistic rules but as truths of Christian life. Moralteachings authoritatively but not infallibly proposed as true arebinding upon the consciences of the faithful, including pope, bishops,theologians, and ordinary laypeople.

All the faithful are to givethese teachings a religious submission (obsequium religiosum) of willand mind. Teachings authoritatively proposed are proposed as true, notas opinions or "prudential guidelines."

Still, such teachings are not infallibly proposed; they are notproposed as "definitively to be held." This raises the question of thenature of the "religious submission" of will and mind and the questionof dissent. Precisely what does this entail?

5. The nature of the "obsequium religiosum" and the question of dissent

It is interesting to note that the term "dissent" did not appear intheological literature prior to the end of Vatican Council II. The"approved" manuals to which the three bishops, who wanted Lumengentium 25 to say something about the nature of the obsequiumreligiosum required for teaching authoritatively but not infalliblyproposed, were referred did not speak of legitimate theologicaldissent from such teaching. [8] Rather, they recognized that atheologian (or other well-informed Catholic) might not in consciencebe able to give internal assent to some teachings. They thus spoke of"withholding assent" and raising questions, but this is a far cry from"dissent."

The Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian issued bythe Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has addressed thismatter. It recognized that theologians (and others) might question notonly the form but even the substantive content of some authoritativelyproposed magisterial teachings. It held that it is permissible in suchinstances to withhold assent, to raise questions (and present them tothe magisterium), to discuss the issues with other theologians (and behumble enough to accept criticism of one's own views by them).Theologians (and others) can propose their views as hypotheses to beconsidered and tested by other theologians and ultimately to be judgedby those who have, within the Church, the solemn obligation ofsettling disputes and speaking the mind of Christ.

But it taught one is not giving a true obsequium religiosum if onedissents from magisterial teaching and proposes one's own position asa position that the faithful are at liberty to follow, substituting itfor the teaching of the magisterium.

then the magisterium shold be clear, backing up its claims of clarity.

But this is precisely what hasbeen occurring. Dissent of this kind is not compatible with theobsequium religiosum. In fact, those who dissent in this way reallyusurp the teaching office of bishops and popes. Theologians, insofaras they are theologians, are not pastors in the Church. When theyinstruct the faithful that the teachings of those who are pastors inthe Church (the pope and bishops) are false and that the faithful canput those teachings aside and put in their place their own theologicalopinions, they are harming the Church and arrogantly assuming forthemselves the pastoral role of pope and bishops.

Actually, it seems the Vatican's bishops and popes have appropriated the magisterium which had formed amidst its theologicans.

What is the role of the Church as moral teacher, and what is theobligation on the part of the faithful (including the pope, bishops,theologians, and ordinary laypeople) to choose in accordance with themoral norms proposed by the Church's teaching authority? Can dissentfrom such teaching be legitimate? To answer these questions it will beuseful to consider

1. teaching authority in the Church; 2. the ways in which this authority is exercised; 3. whether specific moral norms have been taught infallibly by theChurch's teaching authority; 4. the kind of response due to moral teachings that have not beenproposed infallibly; 5. the question of dissent.

1. Teaching authority (magisterium) within the Church

As scholars such as the late great Dominican theologian, Yves CardinalCongar, have noted, the term magisterium has such a long history andduring the Middle Ages it referred to the teaching authority proper totheologians, i.e., those who by study and diligence have achieved someunderstanding of the truths of the faith and their relationship totruths that can be known without the light of faith. [1]

Avery Cardinal Dulles has a very good text from Ave Maria Press's Introductions to Catholic Doctrine, in 2007, where he presents historical chapters about the concept of "magisterium"...In order to really grasp what Father William is saying here it is necessary to know what period one is speaking about in the "middle ages" since the rise of the university did not automatically produce what we now understand as "professional" theologians. Even today it is necessary to be able to discern who are the holy men of letters in the Church and who are the overtly secularized/professional theologians who are often neither holy nor faithful.

I would recommend Cardinal Dulles's text since it appears that Father Avery was both a prayerful priest, and a faithful priest and confessor.

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary in the Church, east or west.

So Father May is pointing to a very particular period in the history of the concept in order to lay the grounds for making a comparison to today.

There never was a time in the Church when the concept of magisterial teaching ever was entirely divorced from the episcopate. Just didn't happen and if Father May gives that impression then that is indeed a weakness in his article...But I don't think that was his intent. He was not writing a book nor was he writing for a hostile audience.

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary in the Church, east or west.

Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary in the Church, east or west.

Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).

no debate about it.

And they are so close to seeing what is the nature of teaching authority in the Church:

Quote

The prerogatives of this teaching authority are made sufficiently clear by the texts and they are to a certain extent implied in the very institution. The Church, according to St. Paul's Epistle to Timothy, is the pillar and ground of truth; the Apostles and consequently their successors have the right to impose their doctrine; whosoever refuses to believe them shall be condemned, whosoever rejects anything is shipwrecked in the Faith. This authority is therefore infallible. And this infallibility is guaranteed implicitly but directly by the promise of the Saviour: "Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world." Briefly the Church continues Christ in its mission to teach as in its mission to sanctify; its power is the same as that which He received from His Father and, as He came full of truth no less than of grace, the Church is likewise an institution of truth as it is an institution of grace. This doctrine was intended to be spread throughout the world despite so many obstacles of every kind, and the accomplishment of the task required miracles. So did Christ give to his Apostles the miraculous power which guaranteed their teaching. As He Himself confirmed His words by His works He wished that they also should present with their doctrine unexceptionable motives for credibility. Their miracles were the Divine seals of their mission and their Apostolate. The Divine seal has always been stamped on the teaching authority. It is not necessary that every missionary should work miracles, the Church herself is an ever-living miracle, bearing always on her brow the unexceptionable witness that God is with her.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary in the Church, east or west.

Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).

Father Hans always had a problem with authority. He NEEDS it to be legal so he can take legitimate pot shots at it.

When authority is divine then he knows he has to go sit down and shut up.

He'll never fully concede the divine origins of the Church's obligatory authority to teach...

Again you use the attacks of a dissenting priest to attack the Catholic Church...my Church.

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary in the Church, east or west.

Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).

Father Hans always had a problem with authority. He NEEDS it to be legal so he can take legitimate pot shots at it.

When authority is divine then he knows he has to go sit down and shut up.

He'll never fully concede the divine origins of the Church's obligatory authority to teach...

Again you use the attacks of a dissenting priest to attack the Catholic Church...my Church.

M.

Albeit Fr. Hans Kung is citing the scholarship of Yves Congar who was made a Cardinal in your church 8 months before his death.

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary in the Church, east or west.

Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).

Father Hans always had a problem with authority. He NEEDS it to be legal so he can take legitimate pot shots at it.

When authority is divine then he knows he has to go sit down and shut up.

He'll never fully concede the divine origins of the Church's obligatory authority to teach...

Again you use the attacks of a dissenting priest to attack the Catholic Church...my Church.

M.

Albeit Fr. Hans Kung is citing the scholarship of Yves Congar who was made a Cardinal in your church 8 months before his death.

Ya...I got that...what you miss is that Mr. Kung leaves out the part where Father Yves says that the authority is divine in origin and is simply the living exercise of a living Church, and becomes organized and expressed in the canons some centuries later.

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary in the Church, east or west.

Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).

Father Hans always had a problem with authority. He NEEDS it to be legal so he can take legitimate pot shots at it.

When authority is divine then he knows he has to go sit down and shut up.

He'll never fully concede the divine origins of the Church's obligatory authority to teach...

Again you use the attacks of a dissenting priest to attack the Catholic Church...my Church.

M.

Albeit Fr. Hans Kung is citing the scholarship of Yves Congar who was made a Cardinal in your church 8 months before his death.

Ya...I got that...what you miss is that Mr. Kung leaves out the part where Father Yves says that the authority is divine in origin and is simply the living exercise of a living Church, and becomes organized and expressed in the canons some centuries later.

Cardinal Yves Congar said their was not so much of a *germ* of what developed into the idea of papal infallibility before the thirteenth century.

If there is no historical trace in the entire first millennium of Christianity, indeed it is a living exercise -ala the magic of Hegelian dialectic, but to suppose papal infallibility goes back to the time of the Gospels, or even before the thirteenth century, is something Cardinal Congar explicitly disavowed.

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary in the Church, east or west.

Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).

Father Hans always had a problem with authority. He NEEDS it to be legal so he can take legitimate pot shots at it.

When authority is divine then he knows he has to go sit down and shut up.

He'll never fully concede the divine origins of the Church's obligatory authority to teach...

Again you use the attacks of a dissenting priest to attack the Catholic Church...my Church.

M.

Albeit Fr. Hans Kung is citing the scholarship of Yves Congar who was made a Cardinal in your church 8 months before his death.

Ya...I got that...what you miss is that Mr. Kung leaves out the part where Father Yves says that the authority is divine in origin and is simply the living exercise of a living Church, and becomes organized and expressed in the canons some centuries later.

Cardinal Yves Congar said their was not so much of a *germ* of what developed into the idea of papal infallibility before the thirteenth century.

If there is no historical trace in the entire first millennium of Christianity, indeed it is a living exercise -ala the magic of Hegelian dialectic, but to suppose papal infallibility goes back to the time of the Gospels, or even before the thirteenth century, is something Cardinal Congar explicitly disavowed.

The infallibility of the papal office is the infallibility of the Church. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Professor Congar is one of my favorites. I do not need to agree with every one of HIS teachings. I do need to agree with my Church.

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary in the Church, east or west.

Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).

Father Hans always had a problem with authority. He NEEDS it to be legal so he can take legitimate pot shots at it.

When authority is divine then he knows he has to go sit down and shut up.

He'll never fully concede the divine origins of the Church's obligatory authority to teach...

Again you use the attacks of a dissenting priest to attack the Catholic Church...my Church.

M.

Albeit Fr. Hans Kung is citing the scholarship of Yves Congar who was made a Cardinal in your church 8 months before his death.

Ya...I got that...what you miss is that Mr. Kung leaves out the part where Father Yves says that the authority is divine in origin and is simply the living exercise of a living Church, and becomes organized and expressed in the canons some centuries later.

Cardinal Yves Congar said their was not so much of a *germ* of what developed into the idea of papal infallibility before the thirteenth century.

If there is no historical trace in the entire first millennium of Christianity, indeed it is a living exercise -ala the magic of Hegelian dialectic, but to suppose papal infallibility goes back to the time of the Gospels, or even before the thirteenth century, is something Cardinal Congar explicitly disavowed.

The infallibility of the papal office is the infallibility of the Church. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Professor Congar is one of my favorites. I do not need to agree with every one of HIS teachings. I do need to agree with my Church.

As far as I know Cardinal Congar never denied believing in papal infallibility "today"; his point was that there was not even a germ of what developed into papal infallibility before the thirteenth century (the view of mainstream historical scholarship generally). It does require a rather radical notion of development, but are you saying you don't think Cardinal Congar was a faithful Catholic in his manner of personal acceptance of the idea while also affirming that its only basis lies in development but not in first millennium Christian history?

No, that is the teaching of the Vatican (although ya'll keep denying that, saying that the other bishops have a share). The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church knows nothing of such heterodox nonsense.

Professor Congar is one of my favorites. I do not need to agree with every one of HIS teachings. I do need to agree with my Church.

So, which is it EM? Does your supreme pontiff have 51% of your "church's infallibility," or doesn't he?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

What is the role of the Church as moral teacher, and what is theobligation on the part of the faithful (including the pope, bishops,theologians, and ordinary laypeople) to choose in accordance with themoral norms proposed by the Church's teaching authority? Can dissentfrom such teaching be legitimate? To answer these questions it will beuseful to consider

1. teaching authority in the Church; 2. the ways in which this authority is exercised; 3. whether specific moral norms have been taught infallibly by theChurch's teaching authority; 4. the kind of response due to moral teachings that have not beenproposed infallibly; 5. the question of dissent.

6. how this authority specifies what is infallible, and what specifically are those norms.

As scholars such as the late great Dominican theologian, Yves CardinalCongar, have noted, the term magisterium has such a long history andduring the Middle Ages it referred to the teaching authority proper totheologians, i.e., those who by study and diligence have achieved someunderstanding of the truths of the faith and their relationship totruths that can be known without the light of faith. [1]

this is a problem, as there is the assertion of a "magisterium of theologians," against which those who deny it hold that in the hierarchy of theological certitude that they are not even ordinary magisterium, the degree of certitude is fallible, and they have no assent required. It that is true, then that applies to the long history refered to here when "magisterium" meant the theologians' teaching authority, and not, as now, the theologians are defined as opposed (meaning not part of) the "magisterium."Donum Veritatis" Instruction on the ecclesial vocation of theologianhttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

one given it by theChurch herself in her understanding of herself as the pillar andground of truth (see Tim 3:15) against which the gates of hell cannotprevail (Mt 16:18; Gal 1:, and as the community to which Christhimself has entrusted his saving word and work. According to her ownunderstanding of the term, the Church teaches that the magisterium isthe authority to teach, in the name of Christ, the truths of Christianfaith and life (morals) and all that is necessary and/or useful forthe proclamation and defense of these truths (see Dei verbum, . Thisteaching authority is vested in the college of bishops under theheadship of the chief bishop, the Roman Pontiff, the "concrete centerof unity and head of the whole episcopate," [2] the successor of theApostle Peter (see Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium, 22; VaticanCouncil I, DS 3065-3074).

ah, but then that college of bishops includes a number of "dissidents." It doesn't seem that your article recognizes that. And then, "the Roman Pontiff" can overrule any and all of the "college of bishops," which vests that magisterium in him, which raises the question of how the College of Cardinals vest in the chief bishop a "munus" they don't have.

This magisterium, moreover, demands assent to its teachings by thefaithful in virtue of the divine authority vested in it and not simplyin virtue of the contents of the message it teaches (Vatican CouncilI, DS 3020). It has authority in teaching all the faithful in keepingwith the inner constitution of the Church itself (Lumen gentium,23-24). Its teaching, moreover, is an exercise of its pastoral office,its munus (a term much richer in connotation than our English"office," connoting a privileged honor and mission [3]), to care forthe "souls" of all the faithful, i.e., to safeguard the divine lifewithin them.

I cannot reply better than the Eastern Patriarchs did:

Quote

For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way.

At times the magisterium proposes matters of faith and moralsinfallibly, i.e., with the assurance that what is proposed isabsolutely irreformable and a matter to be held definitively by thefaithful. At other times the magisterium proposes matters of faith andmorals authoritatively and as true, but not in such wise that thematter proposed is to be held definitively and absolutely. But stillthe matter proposed is to be held by the faithful and to be held astrue. Note that the proper way to speak of teachings proposed in thisway is to say that they are authoritatively taught; it is not properto say that they are fallibly taught.

distinction without a difference as long as you can't/won't tell what is "infallibly" taught.

The magisterium can propose matters infallibly in two different ways.First, a matter of faith or morals can be solemnly defined by anecumenical council or by the Roman Pontiff when, "as the supremeshepherd and teacher of all the faithful, he . . . proclaims by adefinitive act some doctrine of faith or morals" (Vatican I, DS 3074).

a useless term of art as long as "definitive act" is left indefinitely defined.

In acentrally important passage of that document the Council Fathersdeclared:

Although the bishops individually do not enjoy the prerogative ofinfallibility, they nevertheless proclaim the teaching of Christinfallibly, even when they are dispersed throughout the world,provided that they remain in communion with each other and with thesuccessor of Peter and that in authoritatively teaching on a matter offaith and morals they agree in one judgment as that to be helddefinitively (25).

again, ingoring those "dissident" bishops. The majority report on Humanae Vitae being a good example, followed up by the Winnipeg Statement. And the Vatican's bishops do not remain in communion with each other: the Vatican places value only on their communion with it.

This teaching of Vatican II on the infallible character ofauthoritative magisterial teaching in the day-to-day or ordinaryexercise of its authority was by no means a novel teaching of VaticanII. It had been set forth in the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici (c. 1323,#2), a canon repeated as canon 74, #2 in the new Codex Iuris Canonicipromulgated in 1983, and drawn almost word for word from Vatican I'ssolemn teaching on the same matter (cf. DS 3011). Canon 749, #2 in thenew Codex reads as follows: "The College of Bishops also possessesinfallibility in its teaching . . . when the Bishops, dispersedthroughout the world but maintaining the bond of union amongthemselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the sameRoman Pontiff authentically (or authoritatively) teach matters offaith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching isdefinitively to be held."

When the bishops teachon matters of faith and morals in their capacity as bishops, they"speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept theirteaching and adhere to it with a religious assent (obsequiumreligiosum) of soul.

like those bishops of the Winnipeg Statement, and the HV Majority Report?

This religious submission of will and mind mustbe shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of theRoman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, itmust be shown in such a way that his supreme teaching authority isacknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerelyadhered to, according to his manifest mind and will" (Lumen gentium,25). The meaning of this obsequium religiosum will be examined in moredetail below, under #4.

how about according to his unmanifest mind and will, i.e. his usual modus operandi?

3. Are some specific moral norms infallibly proposed by the magisterium?

Every Catholic theologian acknowledges that certain very general moralnorms are infallibly proposed (e.g., one ought to love God and one'sneighbor). But today a key claim made by a good number of Catholictheologians is that no specific moral norms have been infalliblytaught; indeed, they claim that such specific moral norms (e.g., oneought never to commit adultery; one ought never intentionally to killan innocent human being) cannot be taught infallibly.

Some theologians, for example, Charles E. Curran, appeal to the Codeof Canon Law to support their claim. Thus Curran and several of hisassociates appealed in 1969 to paragraph 3 of canon 1323 of the old1917 Code (in fact, they erroneously cited canon 1223, or perhaps thiswas a typographical error), which corresponds to paragraph 3 of canon749 in the new 1983 Code. [4] This paragraph says that "No doctrine isto be understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestlydemonstrated" (emphasis added). But appeal to this paragraph does notsettle the matter. The paragraph to which Curran (and others) appealis explicitly concerned with teachings infallibly defined; it is notconcerned with teachings infallibly proposed by the ordinary,day-to-day exercise of the magisterium.

a moot question, as the canons don't explicitely delineate between the two. And since all the disclaimers about the Pope being infallible in anything and everything he says, unless a teaching falls in that "narrow definition" of infallible that is claimed for Pastor Aeternus, one should assUme that, since to not "manifestly demonstrate" is the modus operandi of the ordinary, day-to-day exercise of the magisterium, that such teaching are not infallible. (note: I didn't say "teach fallibly").

As we shall see, evidence supports the position thatthe core of Catholic moral teaching has been proposed in this way.

These theologians likewise contend that we come to know all specificmoral norms inductively, by reflecting on shared human experiences incompany with others. They then argue that, since "we can never excludethe possibility that future experience, hitherto unimagined, might puta moral problem into a new frame of reference which would call for arevision of a norm that, when formulated, could not have taken suchexperience into account," [5] norms of this kind cannot be universallytrue and hence cannot be fit subject matter of infallible teaching.Here I simply wish to point out that these theologians have notproperly identified the way we come to know specific moral norms. AsSt. Thomas and the Catholic tradition hold, the truth of many specificmoral norms, e.g., the precepts of the Decalogue, can be shown in thelight of the primary principles of natural law. [6]

yes, one of the primary sources of error in the Vatican's thinking. And even here, natural law won't save you, e.g. over usury in agrarian society and interest in capitalist ones.

A final reason advanced by these theologians to support their claimthat specific moral norms are rooted in the "concrete" nature of humanbeings, not in their "transcendental" or "metaphysical" nature, andthat man's "concrete" nature is subject to radical change. Thisposition, rooted in Rahnerian thought, ignores the fact that humannature cannot substantively change if men are to remain men and ifChrist shared Adam's and our human nature. It also ignores the truththat the goods perfective of human persons, the goods to which we areordered by our natural inclinations, the goods at stake in moralchoices, are the same for us as they were for Adam, goods such as lifeitself, living in harmony and fellowship with others, knowledge of thetruth, etc. [7]

recognize that the core ofCatholic moral teaching, as set forth in the precepts of the Decalogueas these precepts have been and are understood within the Churchitself, has been infallibly proposed by the ordinary, day-to-dayexercise of the magisterium by bishops dispersed throughout the worldyet in union with one another and with the Holy Father. For thismagisterium has proposed, as a matter definitively to be held, that itis always gravely immoral intentionally to kill the innocent,

yes, I'm sure the victims of the Inquisition and the children of the Albigensians ("Kill them all, let God sort them out"), not to mention the youngin's that the Crusaders came across were aware of that.

This was theunderstanding of the Church Fathers, of medieval theologians such asThomas Aquinas, etc. It was the firm teaching of the Catechism of theCouncil of Trent, and it was commonly taught by all theologians priorto Vatican II, as attested to in a remarkable text of Karl Rahner inhis book Nature and Grace, published in English in 1963. Although henever formally repudiated what he had said in that book, Rahnersubsequently claimed that the magisterium cannot infallibly teachspecific moral norms insofar as they are concerned with man's concretehuman nature. But, as we have seen, this view cannot be sustained.

What caused Rahner to change his mind, apparently, was Humanae Vitae;for nothing in the text of the documents of Vatican II can be used tosupport this view.

Moreover, and this is very important, Pope John Paul II in EvangeliumVitae explicitly referred to the key passage in Lumen Gentium, 25,identifying the conditions under which the ordinary, day-to-dayexercise of the magisterium can propose truths infallibly. He did soin affirming as solemnly as he could without making an ex cathedrapronouncement the truth of the Church's teaching on a the absolute inviolability of innocent human life from intentionalattack (Evangelium Vitae, 57),b the intrinsically evil character of intentional abortion (Ibid., 62) andc the intrinsically evil character of all forms of euthanasia or mercykilling (Ibid., 65).

if he could (and should) have made an infallible statement ex cathedra, the fact that he avoided it strengthens the argument that it is not infallible: if it were infallible, why avoid treating it as such.

4. The response due moral teachings authoritatively but not infallibly proposed

I have argued that the central core of Catholic moral teaching hasbeen infallibly proposed by the ordinary magisterium. Even if one wereto disagree with this argument (which I believe is sound), one mustacknowledge that the magisterium does teach with a more than merelyhuman authority on moral questions. Moreover, it proposes moral normsnot as legalistic rules but as truths of Christian life. Moralteachings authoritatively but not infallibly proposed as true arebinding upon the consciences of the faithful, including pope, bishops,theologians, and ordinary laypeople.

All the faithful are to givethese teachings a religious submission (obsequium religiosum) of willand mind. Teachings authoritatively proposed are proposed as true, notas opinions or "prudential guidelines."

Still, such teachings are not infallibly proposed; they are notproposed as "definitively to be held." This raises the question of thenature of the "religious submission" of will and mind and the questionof dissent. Precisely what does this entail?

5. The nature of the "obsequium religiosum" and the question of dissent

It is interesting to note that the term "dissent" did not appear intheological literature prior to the end of Vatican Council II. The"approved" manuals to which the three bishops, who wanted Lumengentium 25 to say something about the nature of the obsequiumreligiosum required for teaching authoritatively but not infalliblyproposed, were referred did not speak of legitimate theologicaldissent from such teaching. [8] Rather, they recognized that atheologian (or other well-informed Catholic) might not in consciencebe able to give internal assent to some teachings. They thus spoke of"withholding assent" and raising questions, but this is a far cry from"dissent."

The Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian issued bythe Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has addressed thismatter. It recognized that theologians (and others) might question notonly the form but even the substantive content of some authoritativelyproposed magisterial teachings. It held that it is permissible in suchinstances to withhold assent, to raise questions (and present them tothe magisterium), to discuss the issues with other theologians (and behumble enough to accept criticism of one's own views by them).Theologians (and others) can propose their views as hypotheses to beconsidered and tested by other theologians and ultimately to be judgedby those who have, within the Church, the solemn obligation ofsettling disputes and speaking the mind of Christ.

But it taught one is not giving a true obsequium religiosum if onedissents from magisterial teaching and proposes one's own position asa position that the faithful are at liberty to follow, substituting itfor the teaching of the magisterium.

then the magisterium shold be clear, backing up its claims of clarity.

But this is precisely what hasbeen occurring. Dissent of this kind is not compatible with theobsequium religiosum. In fact, those who dissent in this way reallyusurp the teaching office of bishops and popes. Theologians, insofaras they are theologians, are not pastors in the Church. When theyinstruct the faithful that the teachings of those who are pastors inthe Church (the pope and bishops) are false and that the faithful canput those teachings aside and put in their place their own theologicalopinions, they are harming the Church and arrogantly assuming forthemselves the pastoral role of pope and bishops.

Actually, it seems the Vatican's bishops and popes have appropriated the magisterium which had formed amidst its theologicans.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As far as I know Cardinal Congar never denied believing in papal infallibility "today"; his point was that there was not even a germ of what developed into papal infallibility before the thirteenth century (the view of mainstream historical scholarship generally). It does require a rather radical notion of development, but are you saying you don't think Cardinal Congar was a faithful Catholic in his manner of personal acceptance of the idea while also affirming that its only basis lies in development but not in first millennium Christian history? [/quote]

Unless I can see his text I cannot comment further. It is possible that he sees papal infallibility and ecclesial infallibility as two different things. That is not how his Church presents it but I can only guess without the text in front of me.

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary in the Church, east or west.

Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).

Father Hans always had a problem with authority. He NEEDS it to be legal so he can take legitimate pot shots at it.

When authority is divine then he knows he has to go sit down and shut up.

He'll never fully concede the divine origins of the Church's obligatory authority to teach...

Again you use the attacks of a dissenting priest to attack the Catholic Church...my Church.

M.

Albeit Fr. Hans Kung is citing the scholarship of Yves Congar who was made a Cardinal in your church 8 months before his death.

Ya...I got that...what you miss is that Mr. Kung leaves out the part where Father Yves says that the authority is divine in origin and is simply the living exercise of a living Church, and becomes organized and expressed in the canons some centuries later.

Cardinal Yves Congar said their was not so much of a *germ* of what developed into the idea of papal infallibility before the thirteenth century.

If there is no historical trace in the entire first millennium of Christianity, indeed it is a living exercise -ala the magic of Hegelian dialectic, but to suppose papal infallibility goes back to the time of the Gospels, or even before the thirteenth century, is something Cardinal Congar explicitly disavowed.

The infallibility of the papal office is the infallibility of the Church. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The official definition does not quite line up with your wishful thinking......which is typical Malus Ordo wishy-washy stuff.

The infallibility of the Pope is a personal charism of his which he possesses by virtue of his office (munus) as the successor of the Apostle Peter. It is exercised by the Pope for the good of the Church.

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary in the Church, east or west.

Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).

Father Hans always had a problem with authority. He NEEDS it to be legal so he can take legitimate pot shots at it.

I don't think Fr. Kueng was make a legal charge of forgery against the Vatican. If it makes you feel better we can say "false decretals."

Again you use the attacks of a dissenting priest to attack the Catholic Church...my Church.

If you take rejecting the Donation of Constantine et alia as an attack on your church....the Vatican, you are only admitting that it is not founded on the Rock of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church...our Church.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary in the Church, east or west.

Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).

Father Hans always had a problem with authority. He NEEDS it to be legal so he can take legitimate pot shots at it.

When authority is divine then he knows he has to go sit down and shut up.

He'll never fully concede the divine origins of the Church's obligatory authority to teach...

Again you use the attacks of a dissenting priest to attack the Catholic Church...my Church.

M.

Albeit Fr. Hans Kung is citing the scholarship of Yves Congar who was made a Cardinal in your church 8 months before his death.

Ya...I got that...what you miss is that Mr. Kung leaves out the part where Father Yves says that the authority is divine in origin and is simply the living exercise of a living Church, and becomes organized and expressed in the canons some centuries later.

Cardinal Yves Congar said their was not so much of a *germ* of what developed into the idea of papal infallibility before the thirteenth century.

If there is no historical trace in the entire first millennium of Christianity, indeed it is a living exercise -ala the magic of Hegelian dialectic, but to suppose papal infallibility goes back to the time of the Gospels, or even before the thirteenth century, is something Cardinal Congar explicitly disavowed.

The infallibility of the papal office is the infallibility of the Church. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The official definition does not quite line up with your wishful thinking......which is typical Malus Ordo wishy-washy stuff.

The infallibility of the Pope is a personal charism of his which he possesses by virtue of his office (munus) as the successor of the Apostle Peter. It is exercised by the Pope for the good of the Church.

Indeed! Pastor Aeternus explicitely denies that said office is derived from the Church, and even Lumen Gentium reiterates that.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The official definition does not quite line up with your wishful thinking......which is typical Malus Ordo wishy-washy stuff.

The infallibility of the Pope is a personal charism of his which he possesses by virtue of his office (munus) as the successor of the Apostle Peter. It is exercised by the Pope for the good of the Church.

Sure it does. It is a charism granted to the person of the pope by virtue of the papal office, which can never be found to contradict Scripture and Tradition, the font of revealed truth. That is the root and branch of the infallibility of the Church.

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary in the Church, east or west.

Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).

Father Hans always had a problem with authority. He NEEDS it to be legal so he can take legitimate pot shots at it.

When authority is divine then he knows he has to go sit down and shut up.

He'll never fully concede the divine origins of the Church's obligatory authority to teach...

Again you use the attacks of a dissenting priest to attack the Catholic Church...my Church.

M.

Albeit Fr. Hans Kung is citing the scholarship of Yves Congar who was made a Cardinal in your church 8 months before his death.

Ya...I got that...what you miss is that Mr. Kung leaves out the part where Father Yves says that the authority is divine in origin and is simply the living exercise of a living Church, and becomes organized and expressed in the canons some centuries later.

Cardinal Yves Congar said their was not so much of a *germ* of what developed into the idea of papal infallibility before the thirteenth century.

If there is no historical trace in the entire first millennium of Christianity, indeed it is a living exercise -ala the magic of Hegelian dialectic, but to suppose papal infallibility goes back to the time of the Gospels, or even before the thirteenth century, is something Cardinal Congar explicitly disavowed.

The infallibility of the papal office is the infallibility of the Church. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The official definition does not quite line up with your wishful thinking......which is typical Malus Ordo wishy-washy stuff.

The infallibility of the Pope is a personal charism of his which he possesses by virtue of his office (munus) as the successor of the Apostle Peter. It is exercised by the Pope for the good of the Church.

Indeed! Pastor Aeternus explicitely denies that said office is derived from the Church, and even Lumen Gentium reiterates that.

When will that girl ever go back and study her catechism?!

Btw, I saw your photo on the Facebook page for this list. What a surprise! For years I have had this image of an ancient scholar hunched over his desk! But not at all!

The official definition does not quite line up with your wishful thinking......which is typical Malus Ordo wishy-washy stuff.

The infallibility of the Pope is a personal charism of his which he possesses by virtue of his office (munus) as the successor of the Apostle Peter. It is exercised by the Pope for the good of the Church.

Sure it does. It is a charism granted to the person of the pope by virtue of the papal office,

yeah, can you FINALLY reveal the secret of how that supposedly is transmitted? How does an office, an abstraction, have a charism?

That is the root and branch of the heresies of the Vatican in their present development, but I'm not even sure it can be claimed to be at the root of those heresies, Pastor Aeternus coming over a millenium too late for that.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

That is the root and branch of the heresies of the Vatican in their present development, but I'm not even sure it can be claimed to be at the root of those heresies, Pastor Aeternus coming over a millenium too late for that.

There are no heresies possible in my one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

You can keep your flimsy grey fog...you and Ambrose the Grey.

I've never met two men more proud of not being able to make a declarative sentence except when it comes to some OTHER Church.

That is the root and branch of the heresies of the Vatican in their present development, but I'm not even sure it can be claimed to be at the root of those heresies, Pastor Aeternus coming over a millenium too late for that.

There are no heresies possible in my one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

You can keep your flimsy grey fog...you and Ambrose the Grey.

I've never met two men more proud of not being able to make a declarative sentence except when it comes to some OTHER Church.

Allow me...... the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of which the Creed speaks is the contemporary Orthodox Church and only the Orthodox Church. Declarative enough for you?

2007..... The Agreed Statement ussued by the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Meeting in Ravenna, Sept 2007

"Note [1] Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize thatthe use of the terms "the Church", "the universal Church", "theindivisible Church" and "the Body of Christ" in this document and insimilar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no wayundermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one,holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creedspeaks."

That is the root and branch of the heresies of the Vatican in their present development, but I'm not even sure it can be claimed to be at the root of those heresies, Pastor Aeternus coming over a millenium too late for that.

There are no heresies possible in my one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

You can keep your flimsy grey fog...you and Ambrose the Grey.

I've never met two men more proud of not being able to make a declarative sentence except when it comes to some OTHER Church.

Allow me...... the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of which the Creed speaks is the contemporary Orthodox Church and only the Orthodox Church. Declarative enough for you?

2007..... The Agreed Statement ussued by the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Meeting in Ravenna, Sept 2007

"Note [1] Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize thatthe use of the terms "the Church", "the universal Church", "theindivisible Church" and "the Body of Christ" in this document and insimilar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no wayundermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one,holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creedspeaks."

Yep...my universal Church can say the same thing and a whole lot more...You know...that Catechism that you sent me out to read...heh!! I prefer at least a bit of clarity. Mist is pretty in the morning but in the cold light of day it burns off and reality stares us in the face. The Catholic Church deals. The Orthodox Church ducks or has itself for lunch...om nom nom....

That is the root and branch of the heresies of the Vatican in their present development, but I'm not even sure it can be claimed to be at the root of those heresies, Pastor Aeternus coming over a millenium too late for that.

There are no heresies possible in my one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

You can keep your flimsy grey fog...you and Ambrose the Grey.

You fear the grey? The Tradition is often grey but you can beat it back by denying it unless it has achieved official magisterial definition...... limbo, the fate of unbaptized babies.... maybe in hell but your catechism allows you to "hope" it will not be hell. The teaching of co-redemptrix.... some believe it, some reject it... grey, grey, grey. Humanae Vitae? Infallible or the pious opinion of Paul VI..... grey, gery, grey..... Pshaw!

That is the root and branch of the heresies of the Vatican in their present development, but I'm not even sure it can be claimed to be at the root of those heresies, Pastor Aeternus coming over a millenium too late for that.

There are no heresies possible in my one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

the one who stuck the filioque in its creed?

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ and His Apostles derives the Orthodox Truth through Him, mediated through all the Orthodox episcopate in the diptychs of that Catholic Church to all her members.

I've never met two men more proud of not being able to make a declarative sentence except when it comes to some OTHER Church.

"I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." I declare that every day, and I think I can safely assUme that Fr. Ambrose does as well. And it has nothing to do with any OTHER church, including yours.

« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 11:33:26 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

That's funny, they were fine with St. Peter's authority when he was in Antioch, but when he left them for another city, a more important one, his aegis as Prince of the Apostles suddenly vanished!

Something's funny here. I think the Antiochian supremacists just can't handle the fact that they got dumped.

Antiochian supremacists? Is that another Vatican invention, for the four patriarchal lines it has there, all tracing themselves to Patriarch St. Meletios, who opened the Second Ecumenical Council when Rome refused to recognize him, or the successor the Council elected, Rome instead insisting on the man who ordained St. Jerome-whose line died out?

St. Peter never had any supremacy, or primacy for that matter, when he was at Antioch. The Book of Acts makes that clear:if he did, why would they go to Jerusalem, when Galatians and Acts indicate that St. Peter was at Antioch?

Actually it was Rome who couldn't get over being dumped:hence its use of forgeries/false decretals (mentioned above) harkening back to when it was the capital, and not the cluster of huts it became between the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea I and II (none, of course, ever being convened in Rome, despite for instance Pope St. Leo I's attempt to have Chalcedon in Italy).

« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 11:55:23 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

That is the root and branch of the heresies of the Vatican in their present development, but I'm not even sure it can be claimed to be at the root of those heresies, Pastor Aeternus coming over a millenium too late for that.

There are no heresies possible in my one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

You can keep your flimsy grey fog...you and Ambrose the Grey.

You fear the grey? The Tradition is often grey but you can beat it back by denying it unless it has achieved official magisterial definition...... limbo, the fate of unbaptized babies.... maybe in hell but your catechism allows you to "hope" it will not be hell. The teaching of co-redemptrix.... some believe it, some reject it... grey, grey, grey. Humanae Vitae? Infallible or the pious opinion of Paul VI..... grey, gery, grey..... Pshaw!

Indeed!! Tradition can be exceptionally grey. And God is "silent" more often than not. And even with that we were in communion.

But you have rubbed my nose in the grey areas of Catholic teaching and called them out in black and white!!...to demonstrate why we cannot be in communion.

a) The ordinary, universal Magisterium consists in the unanimousproclamation of the Bishops in union with the Pope. It is expressed inthe fact that all the Bishops (including the Bishop of Rome, who isthe Head of the College) give a common witness. It is not a questionof extraordinary statements, but of the Church's normal life, of whatis preached in ordinary circumstances as universal teaching in theeveryday life of the Church. "This ordinary Magisterium is thus thenormal form of the Church's infallibility".' As a consequence, it isnot at all necessary that everything pertaining to the faith becomeexplicit dogma; on the contrary, it is normal for the truth to beproposed simply by its proclamation in common -which includes non onlywords but also facts; the particular and explicit emphasis of adogmatic definition is, properly speaking, an extraordinary case,usually required for very precise and particular reasons.

b) Moreover, when speaking of the need to verify the actual consent ofall the Bishops dispersed throughout the world or even of the wholeChristian people in matters of faith and morals, it should not beforgotten that this consent cannot be understood only synchronically,but also diachronically. This means that a morally unanimous consentembraces every era of the Church, and only if this totality is hearddoes one remain faithful to the Apostles. "If in some quarter", thewise Cardinal Ratzinger observes, "a majority were to be formed inopposition to the faith of the Church in other times, it would not bea majority at all".2

It is also worth noting that the agreement of the universal Episcopatein communion with the Successor of Peter about the doctrinal andbinding character of an assertion or an ecclesial practice in agespast is not annulled or diminished by dissent that may occur in alater era.

c) Lastly, with particular reference to the teaching about reservingpriestly ordination to men alone, it must be remembered that theApostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis confirmed that this doctrinehas been maintained by the Church's constant, universal tradition andhas been firmly taught by the Magisterium in its most recent documents(n. 4). Now, everyone knows that Tradition is the hermeneutic locuswhere, in various ways "including that of calm conviction"theChurch's self-verifying consciousness operates and is expressed. Inthis specific case, the Church has unanimously and consistentlymaintained that women cannot validly receive priestly ordination, andthis same unanimity and consistency reveals not the Church's owndecision, but her obedience and dependence on the will of Christ andthe Apostles. Consequently, universal Tradition in this matter, markedby consistency and unanimity, contains an objective magisterialteaching that is definitive and unconditionally binding.3 The samecriterion must also be applied to other doctrines regarding universalmoral norms: the killing of an innocent human being is always gravelyimmoral; abortion is always gravely immoral; adultery or slander isalways evil, etc. These doctrines, although not yet declared by asolemn judgement, nevertheless belong to the Church's faith and areinfallibly proposed by the ordinary, universal Magisterium.

In conclusion, in order to speak of the infallible ordinary anduniversal Magisterium, it is necessary that the consent between theBishops have for its object a teaching proposed as formally revealedor as certainly true and undoubted, such that it calls for the fulland undeniable assent of the faithful. One can share theology'sinsistence on conducting careful analyses in researching the reasonsfor this consent or agreement.

Nevertheless, there is no basis for the interpretation that the verification of an infallible teaching of theordinary, universal Magisterium would also require a particular formality in the act of declaring the doctrine in question. Otherwise we would be dealing with a solemn definition of the Pope or of an Ecumenical Council.

These clarifications seem necessary today, not for answering subtleand sophisticated academic questions, but for rejecting a simplistic,reductionist interpretation of the infallibility of the Magisterium,while offering at the same time correct theological principles forinterpreting the value of magisterial teachings and the quality of thedoctrines.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

not even an imprematur nor nihil obstat. Or does publication in the Vatican's Pravda make it ex cathedra, and "free from error"?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

That is the root and branch of the heresies of the Vatican in their present development, but I'm not even sure it can be claimed to be at the root of those heresies, Pastor Aeternus coming over a millenium too late for that.

There are no heresies possible in my one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

You can keep your flimsy grey fog...you and Ambrose the Grey.

You fear the grey? The Tradition is often grey but you can beat it back by denying it unless it has achieved official magisterial definition...... limbo, the fate of unbaptized babies.... maybe in hell but your catechism allows you to "hope" it will not be hell. The teaching of co-redemptrix.... some believe it, some reject it... grey, grey, grey. Humanae Vitae? Infallible or the pious opinion of Paul VI..... grey, gery, grey..... Pshaw!

Indeed!! Tradition can be exceptionally grey. And God is "silent" more often than not. And even with that we were in communion.

But you have rubbed my nose in the grey areas of Catholic teaching and called them out in black and white!!...to demonstrate why we cannot be in communion.

Why the change now?...eh?...Yet you still resist communion.

Baloney

To get a solid grasp of why we cannot share communion and what conditions will make communion appropriate, please read Metropolitan Kallistos Ware's "Communion and Intercommunion." It is only a booklet of maybe 24 pages.

That is the root and branch of the heresies of the Vatican in their present development, but I'm not even sure it can be claimed to be at the root of those heresies, Pastor Aeternus coming over a millenium too late for that.

There are no heresies possible in my one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

You can keep your flimsy grey fog...you and Ambrose the Grey.

You fear the grey? The Tradition is often grey but you can beat it back by denying it unless it has achieved official magisterial definition...... limbo, the fate of unbaptized babies.... maybe in hell but your catechism allows you to "hope" it will not be hell. The teaching of co-redemptrix.... some believe it, some reject it... grey, grey, grey. Humanae Vitae? Infallible or the pious opinion of Paul VI..... grey, gery, grey..... Pshaw!

Indeed!! Tradition can be exceptionally grey. And God is "silent" more often than not. And even with that we were in communion.

But you have rubbed my nose in the grey areas of Catholic teaching and called them out in black and white!!...to demonstrate why we cannot be in communion.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth